Sunday, March 24, 2013

Aw, nuts! 'Hog' squeals and runs away

I refused to salivate over the delicious prospect of Cook County
Commissioner William Beavers, the self-styled "hog with the big nuts,"
taking the witness stand in his own defense.

The splendiferous blowhard swore over and over as his federal trial
on tax-evasion charges approached that he'd testify, but, of course, in
the end he didn't. Defendants tend to make lousy witnesses, particularly
politicians who've come to believe in their persuasiveness, charm and
ability to erect barriers of bluster to deflect tough questions. And
they tend to recognize this danger as the zero hour to raise their right
hands approaches.

In the context of all the pretrial declarations, though, this wisdom
looks a lot like cowardice. And Beavers, who was found guilty Thursday
despite his silence, looks like a man in need of a new barnyard
nickname.

May I suggest, "the chicken with the flimsy spine"?

(Comment thread includes comments on a recent, similar blog item)

Posted at 12:01:00 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

He didn't dare testify.
If he had, the judge was allowing the prosecutors to bring all sorts of evidence against him.
I'm really get sick & tired of these blowhards.
If they say they're going to testify then they should be held to it by being an oral contract.

I'm not a lawyer but doesn't a contract have to involve both sides accepting it and getting something? This is more shooting off your mouth to influence someone. Start enforcing that and do you know how many guys tying to get women into bed you'll have to go through before you get to the defendants who said they would testify but didn't?

It's all about the public posturing, with the lawyers maybe trying to influence the jury pool a little bit. Judge Zagel shut them down, I suspect out of concern for that. The government has its press conferences, and nobody shuts them down.

After the posturing, a decision gets made at trial whether to exercise one's right against self-incrimination. It's a very individualized determination that depends on a lot including how well will he stand up on cross. Most prosecutors are lousy cross-examiners. But unless the defendant will come off very cleanly, most lawyers will advise them not to take the stand. I've seen it end badly for many defendants who took the stand. I know some lawyers who say they would never put a client on.

Why would an oral contract be different if made in private as compared to being made in public? I'm not aware of any contract law that changes based upon the contract being made indoors versus outdoors, for example.

@BC: An oral contract without witnesses, is an he said/she said/someone is lying situation.
A public one, with TV cameras recording is different.

Now that brings up the absurd Trump lawsuit against Bill Maher over his joke bet about $5 million.
Maher did make it on TV, but when that follicly challenged thousandaire, Trump brought out his birth certificate, he brought out the so-called short form one that he said wasn't valid for Obama, thus his suit against Maher makes Trump look like an even bigger famewhore than before, which is an amazing achievement for the short fingered vulgarian, who is one of the few people to go bankrupt in the modern casino industry!

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.